Im joined my my supervisors and our clerk. I would like to thank Sandra Williams for broadcasting this meeting. Madam clerk, any announcements . Please silence all cell phones and electronic devices. Anything part of the file should be submitted to the clerk and iteming will appear on the september 17th, board of agenda. Madam clerk, call item number one. Finding the proposed updated port shoreline protection at a San FranciscoInternational Airport fiscally feasible pursuant to code 29. Thank you. I believe we have kathy weidner, director of Government Affairs at the International Airport. Yes, good morning, chair and members of the committee. The items before you is an updated i should say the airport is seeking your approval of a previously approved shoreline protection project, fiscal feasibility report. We are asking you to find that the expanded project is fiscally feasible pursuant to chapter 29 of the citys administrative code. In 2015, the airport completed an airport shoreline protection Feasibility Study identifying deficiencies in existing infrastructure and made recommendations on the improvements necessary to protect the airports shoreline Protection System against 11inches of sealevel rise. At that point, the board found the 2015 project to be fiscally feasible. The programme at that time focusing on addressing the current level of flood risks and moderate amounts of sealevel rise. Sealevel projections incorporated into the programme were based on science from 2012. Since the time of the approval of that project in 2015, the science for Sea Level Rise has been updated by 2018 new design criteria from the state of california. In march of 2018, the state of california adopted a new sealevel rise guidance programme, which the airport used to update the report before you today. The updated shoreline Protection Programme proposes construction of new shoreline Protection Systems around the entire perimeteperimeter of the airpor, including along highway 101, that would protect the airport facilities and runways against a 100year storm and 36inches of sealevel rise. Tout ththis is estimated to cost 587 million. The significant cost increase is due to constructing infrastructure to address sealevel rise up to 36inches rather than the previously reported 11inches. The 2019 shoreline Protection Programme provides for new sheet pile wall and concrete wall construction and Environmental Mitigation not included in the approved 2015 shoreline protection study. The airport intends to fund the updates project by utilizing debt finance through the general aviation Revenue Bonds. The budget analyst recommends approval and i would be happy to answer specific questions you might have. Thank you very much. Colleagues, any questions or comments for miss weidner . Seeing none, lets hear from from the analysts office. The proposed resolution would find the airports proposed shoreline Protection Programme to be physically feasible and responsible in accordance with chapter 29 of the administrative code. Approval of this resolution would allow the airport to proceed with environmental review. In december of 2015, the board of supervisors found the airport proposed programme to be physically feasible in accordance with chapter 2019. In march of 2018, the state of california issued a report called sealevel rise guidance with updated sealevel rise. This incorporates new design criteria to address sealevel rise resulting in shoreline Protection Programmes, scope and estimated coasts from 580 million to 718 million and this includes a breakdown of the estimated costs. This is due to constructing infrastructure to address sealevel rise up to 36inches rather than 11inches in the 2015 plan. A list of major changes to the scope of work is shown on page 3 of the report. The areas to be considered for determination of fiscal feasibility and this is on pages 47 of our report. According to the march 2019 airport shoreline protection project fiscal Feasibility Study, its to maintain operations and associated reductions in airport employment and revenue. The estimated shoreline Programme Cost 587. 1 million, the airports Capital Improvement programme includes 15. 7 million in airport revenue funds. The remaining scope and estimated budget are 571. 4 million for Construction Costs and Environmental Mitigation will need to be added to the Improvement Plan at a future date. The airport estimates that issuance of 58 587 million in Revenue Bonds would result in 1. 5 million in debt statements over the 30year term of the bonds. Debt Service Costs to repay the airport Revenue Bonds are paid from airport revenue received from the airports doing business through airport rates and charges, as well as lease and concession revenues. As previously noted, the funding of fiscal feasibility allows the airport to proceed with review for the shoreline Protection Programme. Issuance of airport Revenue Bonds and appropriation of funds for the Protection Programme are subject to future board of supervisors approval and we do recommend approving the proposed resolution. Thank you. This opens us up for member comment. Any members like to comment . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Colleagues any comments or questions . I just have to say that this is somewhat frightening. The fact that were now anticipating the first sealevel rise of 36inches rather than 1, ten times the cost and the protection says until 2085, but that is just our best estimate with known science. So this is frightening, quite frankly. I dont know, i wont be alive in 2085, but i do think that this isnt the last time we will see an assessment that we might have to recalibrate how much more protection we will need. I think we have seen in these past years and in the recent past years that Mother Nature has the last word on this. So seeing how the vla recommends approval, no disagreement here . I would like to move this to the full board with a positive recommendation and we can take that without objection. Thank you very much. Everybody pray. Ok, lets go on to item number 3. I would like to continue this item until the next meeting of the budget and finance committee, which is the 18th, i believe. Would you like me to read item number 3 . Yes, im so sorry. Item number 3, resolution authorizing the director of property to sell up to 550,000 gross square feet of remaining Transferable Development rights authorized from the war memorial complex at 301 and 401 at fair market value. As i said, i would like to continue this next meeting, which i believe is september 18th. But lets first hear Public Comment. Any members . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. We will hear the daily report and also staff report at that time and i would like to make a motion to continue this item until the meeting of september 18th. We can take that without objection. Thank you very much. Madam clerk, can you please read item number 4 . Hearings to consider the. Fund to the Public Utilities commission in the amount of 3 million to fund the operation, no cost of the solar assess programme for 20192020. Thank you very much. Is it angela putane from sfc power. Yes, im the Programme Managers at the enterprise. This is a request for the release of 3 million on budget and finance committee reserve for the go solar sf programme. This is the Incentive Programme providing incentives, monetary incentives to residents, businesses and nonprofit organizations, installing solar panels on San Francisco rooftops and provides additional incentives to lowincome households and to projects that have been installed by San Franciscobased installation companies. In june of 2014, the board of supervisors placed 3 million on reserve for the go solar sf programme to be used when the clean power sf Community Choice aggregation programme was up and running. The board wanted to ensure that go solar sf funding would be available for the new customers. , these new power sf power. Clean power sf launched in early of 2016, so the go solar sf programme is currently providing Solar Incentives to clean power sf customers and hetchi power customers. The 3 million will be used to fund the programme this fiscal year. 1. 8 million is budgeted for solar alternatives. 800,000 is budgeted for the low income inverter Replacement Programme, which will provide incentives to lowincome households to replace a component of their solar system, the inverter, which has reached the end of its useful life. Finally 406,000 is budgeted for administrative costs. I would be happy to answer any questions, supervisors. Thank you very much and any questions or comments from my colleagues . Seeing none, could we have a daily report, please . Im from the analysts office. The supervisors placed 3 million on reserve for the go solar sf programme pending implementation of the clean power sf programme. Sf puc is requesting to release the funding from reserve to fund the programme through june of 2020. It originates from the hetchi power enterprise from the 20152016 budget. The solar sf is developing a Replacement Programme which would help lowincome. Reporter s replace solar lr reverters and 1. 8 million is budgeted for Solar Panel Incentives and approximately 400,000 is budgeted for administrative costs. A breakdown of the gosolar sf budget is shown on table two on page 14 of our report with a further breakdown of the go solar incentive budget on table 2, also on page 14 of our report. We recommend approving the request. Thank you very much. This opens us up for Public Comment. Any members like comment . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. So colleagues, this is not a motion to send it to the full board. Its just requires us to approve the release for the funds forenoon reserves. I make a motion to approve the release from the budget and finance reserve. Take that without objection and thank you very much. Madam clerk . Madam chair, can we please file this hearing . Yes, please, thank you. Can you call number 5 . Item number 5, resolution to authorize the District Attorney to accept and expand a grand for total not to exceed 267,000 from the california Victim Compensation board, for the period of july 1, 2019 to june 30, 2022 to continue the criminal restitution compact, should the parties agree to a amendment under the provisions of the Grant Agreement. Thank you and we have jackie ortize from the Victim Services division. Yes, good morning. Please be advised the grant is technically not retroactive because it was budgeted in the annual budget process. This resolution is needed to meet the california Victim Compensation board requirements, which has a separate legislation authorizing the approval of the funds. Do you have any questions for me . Colleagues, any questions . Seeing none, no report on this and lets open this up for Public Comment. Anany members like to comment se seeing none, Public Comment is now closed. Madam clear, point of clarification, since the department mentioned that this resolution is not retroactively approving the grant, can we amend the resolution to strike the retroactive leads on page 1, line 2, i believe . Yes, thank you very much. We can strike retroactive from the title of it and we can talk that without objection. And then lets move it to the full board as amended. Thank you very much. Thank you. Can you please read item number 2, please . Retroactively authorizing the park departments into an internet agreement for the protect Environment Agency for the receipt of 1. 2 million in the remediation project for a term of january 1, 2018 through september 18, 2030. We have a representative from the rec and part and this is part of the indian basin project. Yes, the indian basin waterfront project is between recreation and parks, the trust for public land and San Francisco parks alliance. This is designed to honor the history and culture of the neighborhood, part of a plan by social justice communities. Currently, we are moving into our 2020 construction phase of the project and this is what we will be doing, side demolition and removal of band structures, remediation of soils containing elevated concentrations of sediments. The department was awarded a 1. 2 million Funding Grant from the United States protection agency. This was actually appropriated through 20182019 budget process and originally allocated to the Construction Cost expected to occur in 2020. In fall of 2018, the United States epa asked to build a grants fund and the administers at the federal level wanted to ensure we were spending the money,es, and epa isnt the most favorable department. In spring of 2018, there was a grant over one Million Dollars or greater approval by the board of supervisors. After learning about this additional requirement, we asked for this Grant Agreement before you today to be retroactive approval. Lets open this up for comment . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. I would like to move this to the full board with a positive recommendation and we can take that without objection, thank you very much. Madam clerk, any other business before us today . No further business. We are adjourned. In this San Francisco office, there are about 1400 employees. And theyre working in roughly 400,000 square feet. We were especially pleased that cleanpowersf offers the super green 100 clean energy, not only for commercial entities like ours, but also for residents of the city of San Francisco. We were pleased with the package of services they offered and were now encouraging our employees who have residence in San Francisco to sign on as well. We didnt have any interruption of service or any problems with the switch over to cleanpowersf. This clean power opportunity reflects that. I would encourage any Large Business in San Francisco to seriously consider converting and upgrading to the cleanpowersf service. Its good for the environment, its good for business and its good for the community. Hi. My name is carmen chiu, San Franciscos aelectricitied assessor. Today, i want to share with you a property tax savings programs for families called proposition 58. Prop 58 was passed in 1986 and it was helped parents pass on their lower Property Tax Base to their children. So how does this work . Under californias prop 13 law, the value we use to calculate your property tax is limited to 2 growth peryear. But when ownership changes, prop 13 requires that we reassess properties to market value. If parents want to pass on their home or other property to their children, it would be considered a change in ownership. Assuming the market value of your property has gone up, your children, the new owners, would pay taxes starting at that new higher level. Thats where prop 58 comes in. Prop 58 recognizes the transfer between parents and children so that instead of taxing your children at that new higher level, they get to keep your lower prop 13 value. Remember, prop 58 only applies to transfers between parents and children. Heres how the law twines an eligible child. A biological child, a step child, child adopted before the age of 18, and a soninlaw or daughterinlaw. To benefit from this tax saving program, remember, you just have to apply. Download the prop 58 form from our website and submit it to our office. Now you may ask, is there a cap how much you can pass on. Well, first, your principal residence can be excluded. Other than that, the total tap of properties that can use this exclusion cannot exceed 1 million. This means for example if you have two other properties, each valued at 500,000, you can exclude both because they both fit under the 1 million cap. Now what happens hwhen the totl value you want to pass on exceeds 1 million. Lets say you have four properties. Three with current taxable value of 300,000 and one at 200,000, totaling 1. 1 million in value. Assuming that you decide to pass on properties one, two, and three, we would apply the exclusions on a first come, first served basis. You would deduct properties one, two, and three, and you wo